I've been in a letter-writing mood recently, and some of my rants have even been published. But in the process, I've learned a few valuable (and slightly painful) lessons. One of the letters I wrote was to TMA, in response to a recent article on what we can learn from Wilberforce. I thought it was a good and worthwhile article, but it was entirely focused on what Wilberforce did right, and given my thoughts on this, I thought a more balanced perspective would also be helpful. So I fired off a letter that pointed out a few of Wilberforce's less positive attitudes/achievements - his confidence in the 'God-given' social order, his support for legislation to suppress and punish working-class activists and his efforts to halt the involvement of women in the abolitionist cause. I suggested that we needed to learn from his mistakes as well as his impressive successes.
The letter was published, and this edition of TMA contains two letters in response. One, from the original author of the article was pleasant, thoughtful and raised several more good points about the historical context. The second writer was not so measured. He obviously read my letter as a mean-spirited attack on a great man. He criticised my facts, my historical method, my agenda and my conclusions. He accused me of sounding like a 21st century liberal progressive, which I am horrified about (really)! I'm composing a reply that is as conciliatory as I can make it while still holding firmly to my original argument, but in the meantime I've learned a few lessons about writing to the paper. I share them with you, dear readers, in the hope that you will never offend so unintentionally.
The letter was published, and this edition of TMA contains two letters in response. One, from the original author of the article was pleasant, thoughtful and raised several more good points about the historical context. The second writer was not so measured. He obviously read my letter as a mean-spirited attack on a great man. He criticised my facts, my historical method, my agenda and my conclusions. He accused me of sounding like a 21st century liberal progressive, which I am horrified about (really)! I'm composing a reply that is as conciliatory as I can make it while still holding firmly to my original argument, but in the meantime I've learned a few lessons about writing to the paper. I share them with you, dear readers, in the hope that you will never offend so unintentionally.
- Never, ever send a letter to the editor from your work email, even if you are writing on a topic of personal expertise. Sending a letter with my signature block from the 'School of Historical Studies' clearly made me sound like some kind of know-it-all historian who was trying to throw my weight around. (OK, maybe I was, a bit! I've repented!)
- Making an historical point in a letter to the editor is not the same thing as making one in a journal article. It's all much more personal and (not surprisingly!) less academic. But at the same time, it's much shorter - so it's hard to be as nuanced as I'd like to be. As a result, it's easy to be/sound glib or harsh.
- Never underestimate the extent to which Christians feel personally protective of their historical 'heroes'. This is an issue I feel strongly about, but I realise I have to tread gently. I think Wilberforce was an amazing and inspirational figure. I also think he left us with some very unhelpful attitudes to social action that we have still not fully critiqued. But I need to respect people's loyalty and devotion to their heroes.
No comments:
Post a Comment